Continued...

If wearing a burqa makes a moslimah feel devoted to her god, even though I personally think that this is a crazy thing to do, I can of course express my opinion but for the rest it is none of my business and I wouldn’t want to interfere with their choice!

I also think it’s crazy to have 100 facial and body piercings or wear, as somebody mentioned, extremely high heels on which one can not even walk properly, and with the danger of spraining one’s ankle or hurting one’s back. But would I want to interfere? No!
Who says that some people are not a ‘victims’ of fashion or under peer pressure to have tattoos and body piercings?
Why don't you go and 'rescue' them, too?

You try to be a do-gooder when you say that you “denounce fanatics in our midst who subjugate and oppress women under the name of Islam” , but don’t you see that in countries that have banned the burqa, such as Turkey and France, it now has become a matter of violation of women’s rights because women are being prohibited from wearing what they want.

And why do you single out women who are oppressed under the name of Islam? While you believe that Islam is to blame for women’s oppression, you ignore the women inside the backward Exclusive Brethren, or Eastern Orthodox Church. Or what about the Congo, where the majority are Christians and perhaps 10% Muslim? What about the Mormon fundies who believe that women are the property of the men?
Me thinks that you will keep on targeting Islam and make yourself believe that you are ‘helping’ these women.

“Thousands of Muslim women in the UK are seeking divorces from their husbands.”
Well, good for them. That means that muslimahs are capable to get out of a marriage if they want to. Just like Christian, Jewish or atheist women.
Sounds like muslimahs do not need to be rescued by people who tell them what to wear.

Severin, "Do you support ban on burqas, but not a separation between the state and religion?"

Fair dinkim that would have to be one of the most idiotic posts on this board. For heaven's sake, don't you read any posts before unloading? Here, from page 1:

"If a few attention-seeking women want to rock around Oz in potato sacks so be it but really, truly, who cares? Frankly, it is not worth banning.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 21 May 2010 12:15:13 PM"

Also, although I shouldn't feel obliged to say this because it is totally irrelevant to this thread, on OLO I have previously supported offering the study of ethics and philosophy, or even doing other homework or sport, in lieu of religious studies.

Now along with Celivia who also seems determined to similarly divert onto religion, would you mind doing me the justice of reading what I have written about security and schools, which is being driven by parent and community demands and has nothing to do with religion and chaplains. The security complaints are mainly rooted in alleged problems arising from family law. It is a fact that non-custodial persons, women included, have taken children and have even whisked them abroad.

It is the expectation of school communities and the public generally, that the scrutiny of anyone on school grounds will be tight and part of that is ensuring that everyone is easily recognisable, readily identifiable and easily described. It is ridiculous to even propose that a school should be required to provide a female staff member to escort someone around because that person's religious fundamentalism 'requires' the wearing of a face concealing bag.

Protagoras
Your motives and good ones in wishing to stop oppression of women and I don't read your comments as being anti-Muslim. I have read enough of your comments on other issues on OLO to believe you think sensitively and intelligently about many issues. Virginia Hausegger has written similar on this subject. Hausegger also IMO does not write as an anti-Muslim, but like you comes at the debate from a purely pro-women perspective as she sees it.

However, as you have come to conclude yourself albeit for other reasons, a ban is counter-productive and may actually result in a minority of women living more restricted lives in the worst of cases.

Celivia's last two posts echo my thoughts, nothing good will come from a ban. There is hope in more secular societies that the extreme aspects of some religions may be tempered to some extent with exposure to other cultures. We might think it silly for a Brethren women to be forced to wear a headscarf while men remain hair-exposed, or a Muslim women to wear a Burqua or hijab, but it is a human right to choose one's religion including some that sometimes come with a dress code.

In fact the more we jump up and down the more it will be defended so I just reckon live and let live other than respecting the security considerations at designated venues.

What happens though to the first public transport operator who asks to see the person demanding the student concession? Have only female drivers and a confidential booth?

Religious tolerance is fine but this is a secular state.

Or how about the invigilator in an examination who wants to see the identity of the person under the bedsheet or check that they don't have any hidden electronic cheating devices? As it is, regular examinees are required to remove their headgear with special exemptions for sikhs and muslimahs. Not to extend such exemptions to burqinahs would be discriminatory.
Or how about the burqinah who applies for a job as a bus or taxi driver and then sues for discrimination when they are told that their attire is not suitable as it masks their identity?
Or how about the burqinah who applies for a job as a police officer?
Many Western police forces already incorporate the hijab into police uniforms.
Not to include the burqa surely amounts to discrimination.
Or how about the burqinah who is permitted to enter a bank while the motorcyclist with an open-faced helmet is ordered to remove it. The situation already exists where banks allow hijabs while disallowing open-faced helmets.
Muslims are already successfully suing public swimming pool which disallow Islamic swimming gear on the same basis that they disallow board shorts and other loose clothing in the water. Why not? It's discrimination!
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3486:perths-adventure-world-coughs-up&catid=274:litigation-jihad&Itemid=59
It's called lawfare and it's part of the jihad.

Thank you for your very rational post Pelican. It is curious to witness the vitriol directed at the opponents of the feigned bleeding hearts who accuse one of discrimination when the burqa is not part of Islam. It is predominantly part of a culture in the Middle East reinforced by men from the stone age.

And lets be honest - religions are afraid of women, and do everything possible to deny them the sensual natural world we inhabit but nobody can enforce a dress code in the name of Islam. I think you'd agree that validating equality, fraternity and liberty is not symbolised by a burqa.

Hindu women, especially in the north of India, practise veiling also - the burqa is the extreme end of the continuum, however, there is nothing in Hinduism that makes an individual's spiritual salvation anyone's business except the individual herself.

Interestingly, participants on this thread use the argument of the nun and the habit, which incidentally does not cover the face. This is a fatuous argument and I can personally attest to the fact that nuns kicked the habit decades ago - post Vatican II. These days one can converse with liberated, backpacking nuns in pants suits or floral skirts - no headgear!

More curious are the young women in the West who insist on wearing the burqa while their mothers did not and instead of the burqa protecting her from probing eyes, she has become a spectacle.

No-one knows how many Muslim girls and women are "veiling" because they are: 1) defying the demands of a Western culture 2) from choice 3) out of fear of their own men folk.

Perhaps at least some Muslim women wear the burqa as a protest against the Western invasions of Islamic countries? Besieged groups will after all tighten, not loosen their grip on peculiar customs, subjected to ridicule. However, I would urge those subjugated women in democratic countries to become fearless when they continue to have the most to fear from an oppressor, hellbent on importing medieval, tribal customs to a free nation.